Blogs cannot change the way newspapers are written, but they can change the way people read them
Linking to , my father says "Two things that have stuck me: how tolerant so many religious people are, even though it would seem logical not to be. And how intolerant so many secular ideologies can be."
Americans are becoming more tolerant of everybody, except the people they disagree with.Steven Den Beste on Muqtada al-Sadr and Michael Moore
There's been a lot of talk lately — much of it whiny — about "polarization" in American politics. Wahhh: Michael Moore is hellspawn. Or: Wahhh: Michael Moore is a secular prophet and the Pharisees of the ruling class are crucifying him.
Others have complained that liberals and conservatives don't read the same books anymore so they can't even agree on common facts for reasonable disagreements (which would explain the Hellspawn v. Prophet thing).
-"Bowling with the Like-Minded: Communities of tolerance" by Jonah Goldberg
Linking to this post on the Kerry campaign and negative advertising, my father writes:
But what's wrong with negative campaigning? Any time you say, "I'd be better than him," you are implicitly saying, "He will be worse than me." And that's negative.(And relating back to the actual link, Instapundit has a roundup on the Bush Lied yellowcake meme.)
I used to try to vote in Dartmouth College Alumni Trustee elections. But the College has a rule that you can't do negative campaigning. So everyone makes a bland, positive statement and every candidate sounds pretty much like every other--and it's really hard to have any idea why one candidate would do anything different from another. The College has rendered the elections pretty much useless as an exercise of voting power by the alumni (which a cynic would say is just what the administration wants).
My slogan: "Negative campaigning: the guarantee of democracy" :)
johnxjohn is quite fun.
*dies* Such beautiful satire. The comments in VodkaPundit are also amusing.
Oxblog says "The Dems are still the party of love in 2004". I heart the Washington Times and Pandagon on this.
I know i really should look into the actual political discussions of what Edwards means for the Kerry campaign, but snickering at the gay is so much more appealing. (Plus, is there anyone Kerry could possibly have selected as running mate who would affect the fact that i don’t trust Kerry in that which matters most at the moment -- inter/national security? If there exists such a person it sure isn’t Edwards.) Pandagon says that superficiality is the narrative of choice for this ticket.
Another libertarian for Kerry Interesting.
I would have no words for this, but Jonah Goldberg has the perfect response: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CANCEL BUFFY & ANGEL
(A commmenter on JoanneJacons.com reminds us that Xander was recruiting Slayers in Africa when last we heard.)